Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Monday November 08, 2004 @02:00PM
from the well-goo-then dept.

Outlyer writes "A recent article in The Economist discusses the proximate causes for the decline in music sales. Of some note is this quote in the article:
"According to an internal study done by one of the majors, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the drop in sales in America had nothing to do with internet piracy. [...] Other explanations: rising physical CD piracy, shrinking retail space, competition from other media, and the quality of the music itself. But creativity doubtless plays an important part." The article discusses in some depth the short-term viewpoint of the majors and why that is likely to be the dominant problem, not the internet bogeyman."

Right, but it does nothing to help the artist. Even for musicians and bands who're on RIAA-represented labels (who receive next to nothing for album sales), new album purchases serve as an important popularity gauge.
The *only* entity you're helping when you purchase used music is the store you're buying from. Might as well just download the music for what it's worth.

Ever since I started buying music on iTunes, I have yet to buy an entire album. What does that suggest? There are too many junky tracks on every CD. There is no reason to make consumers pay $12 for CD, when I can download the track I want for $0.99.

The sad part is the consumers are being blamed, when the record company execs steal the most. They don't need a promotion everytime an artist successfully go mainstream. If anything they should be fired for the lack of promotion of new artists. So many good artists out there are invisible under the radar unless you sample on iTunes or something.

Ever since I started buying music on iTunes, I have yet to buy an entire album. What does that suggest? There are too many junky tracks on every CD. There is no reason to make consumers pay $12 for CD, when I can download the track I want for $0.99

It could also suggest that you no longer are interested in stuff that you don't like right away.
Looking back at all my CDs, I find that it is very common for my favorite tracks to be ones that I initially did not think much of. They grew on my after many listens, as I came to appreciate things I hadn't noticed on the first listen.

That's very true with me. I will buy a CD for one or two songs, then over the course of listening to it, I will grow to love other tracks on the CD that I didn't pay much attention to at first.

That's why when I hear something new that I like, I will download a few tracks by the artist, and if I like him/her, I will buy their CD. I will first look at my used store for it though. I'd happily buy it new from Streetside if the RIAA weren't being such assholes about suing people who share music. If the RIAA would just leave file sharers alone they'd see their sales increase [harvard.edu] rather than decrease.

Maybe I'm missing it, but it seems like more and more albums are just a collection of random songs -not a group of songs that were made to go together.

OTOH, I wonder how many here are old enough to remember buying music before the LP? The music industry seems to have forgotten that they used to sell just singles in the form of the '45. Yes, it had a "B" side, but everyone understood you were basically buying singles. Now the music industry in a tizzy because people only want to buy singles and they couldn't possibly survive if people only bought singles.

Ever since I started buying music on iTunes, I have yet to buy an entire album. What does that suggest? There are too many junky tracks on every CD.

I don't know what sort of music you listen to, but I like a lot of albums as a whole, as they've been produced by the artists and the producers. The promoted singles sometimes get my attention, but I usually prefer to play the album completely.

After all, would you be satisfied watching a 10 minute slot out of a movie or half an act in a play? Those

"I don't listen to music anymore (I can say for about 1.5 years now.) On radio I only listen to talk-shows (good ones in Toronto area.)
BTW. when I buy blank CDs I am forced to pay a tax on it to 'help the artists'. Shit, I don't even care about any artists anymore, why am I forced to help them?"

"Why I am forced to pay taxes into healthcare even though I don't get sick very often?"

"Why do people have to pay taxes into the public school system, even if they send their children to private school?"

Because that is the way things are spun in this country. Social responsibility and social subsidising are facts of the way the country has chosen to run itself. It's a facet of the way Canada works and it has its advantages and disadvantages. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better with what many other nations put up with.

Yes, I realize this is the way things are done in this country, however I don't see music as a necessity of life, do you? When someone can't afford a surgery, they die, well I guess the society somehow figures it's better to put the money to help these bastards, but when someone can't make a living by running a business that is not essential to anyone, the society decides to do the same thing....Are you telling me that this makes any sort of sense? If it does, I am off to my accountant, I am going to register a few corporations as a musician, then I am going to produce some crap I will call music (noone has to like it, or buy it even,) and then I will be waiting for my check from the government, who is collecting those taxes for me.

My point is that the levy is in line with the precedents in Canada and I understand why it is there, and how it makes sense within that framework of thinking. - I am not sure that it does make sense though. If it does, then all of those failing businesses in the country should be subsidized by the citizens of the country and I do not see that happenning. When a restaurant is openned and it goes bankrupt, I don't see the canadian government stepping in and sharing some money with that business, after all, the recipes used to prepare the food served in that place can surely be shared over the web. What's left is just buying some groceries and spending an hour in the kitchen. So no, giving money to a losing business does not make any sense even from canadian perspective. In health care for example, the money is there not to help the doctors, but to help the patients.

And as long as I am paying for it, I might as well reap the legal benefits. - and I am not going to do that because again, I don't listen to music anymore. Too bad for me, I guess, I see no benefit from these subsidies whatsoever ever in any shape or form.

As to your plan of creating a 'fake' music corporation, that's abuse of the system and it doesn't count as an example. - oh, the harsh words - 'abuse'. I feel abused by the system already, this just maybe my way of getting back at the system and taking away the money they take away from me. Sure sure, two wrongs don't a right make;/ but as long as they treat me as a child or a criminal, I will treat them with the same attitude and no respect.

No, music is pretty much for shit these days. My kids are entering their teen years and have found that they really like music. But the irony is the type of music that they really like.

1960-1980 Rock. Any current bands (eg: Blink 182) they only like a couple of songs and those preferences quickly fad away.

But they both keep coming back and listening to the older music that's on the Classic Rock music stations.

Current music sucks. It's an excellent example of monitization of art. That is to say, they practice of Art has been so heavily influenced by the monitary potential of art that all art is viewed not on it's artistic content, but on it's monitary potential. This started with the manufactured Boy Bands like Back Street Boys and N'SYNC. Even SouthPark figured this one out years ago.

Take some star like Britney Spears. Her first three songs showed some style and some actual singing talent. Now about the only thing that helps her revenue stream are her boobs. Her singing is much lower quality and poorer content than it ever was, second only to her ever decreasing investment on clothing.

I've been hearing about the RIAA bitching for decades and everyone has consistently replies, "But your music sucks so bad, why should be pay money for it?"

Now the interesting thing will be if this will be applied to the MPAA and the problems that they have with movies. After all, re-releasing Apocolypse Now and The Godfather are a sure sign that they can't do anything right anymore. Not all movies suck, but the percentage of good movies has dropped well below what it used to be.

My kids are entering their teen years and have found that they really like music.

Now there's a surprise:)

No, music is pretty much for shit these days.

And this is different from when my parents told me the same thing 15 years ago how? Adults never like the popular stuff of the time, but then they're not the target market.

I don't like much "pop" these days either, but then to be fair I never did. But it's a huge mistake to infer from this that there's no good music being made right now. There's loads. Music is a huge part of my life and there's plenty of good stuff around...you just have to look beyond your local "all hits, all the time" radio station.

I have bought 2 cd's in the past 3-4 years, not because I am pirating or downloading, but because I firmly believe the RIAA are the biggest crooks in this picture and refuse to support them.

I believe the RIAA will rape their artists every which way they possibly can, and cheat them out of their royalties at every chance. Given this, I find it more than a little ironic that the RIAA campaigns against piracy by boldly proclaiming that downloaders are cheating the artists.

Here's to hoping that sales continue to decline until the RIAA crumbles entirely out of the picture.

The *only* entity you're helping when you purchase used music is the store you're buying from. Might as well just download the music for what it's worth.

I would disagree. This was how it was for me a few years ago anyways.. I wasnt out to "collect" as many CD's as I can... my music tastes would change, and over the time I'd trade in less listened to CD's for something new.

Yes, the artist would "sell more" if everyone only bought new, but then I would have offset my used-cd purchases by buying fewer. Fewer people buying used CD's helps deflate the price you would get trading in music, making the whole thing less attractive.

Gray markets do have a positive impact on sales - it's just not as obvious an impact.

"In Canada, we pay taxes on blank tapes and CDs, and now minidiscs and MP3 players. In exchange, we can make personal copies onto these media. However, AFAIK, it does not cover downloads. So your $35 tax was to allow you to copy music from your CD's and put them on your iPod, or even borrow somebody else's CD and do the same, or take one out of the library, but NOT download them from the internet."

I buy used CD's, I buy albums direct from the band at concerts, and I buy new LP's direct from my favorite independant labels like Saddle Creek [saddle-creek.com] and Jade Tree [jadetree.com]
I have bought about 20 albums in the past year, and I'm sure none of them show up on the RIAA sales records.

oh yeah, I have also purchased a dozen or so random songs on iTMS. IIRC, legal digital downloads aren't counted are album sales, so they can bitch about how cd's don't sell, but millions of albums a week are selling on iTMS.

Its time for the record companies to stop fighting the future and adopt a new business model.

Its time for the record companies to stop fighting the future and adopt a new business model

Is it time for the traditional Heinlein "Life Line" quote?

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,or turned back, for their private benefit.

I used to do this, but Used CDS are getting to be really really expensive. Like 10-12 Dollars. I don't quite get that at all. Anyone have some insite to why they are getting to be so much?

Simple, supply and demand. In may cases, the only place you are going to find a particular album is in a used record store. (At least retail.) What was a second hand market is starting to evolve into a collector's market.

It's like the surge in "upscale" thrift stores. It turns out there is a market for retro clothing that is apart from the market for inexpensive clothing.

Heck, lobster used to be a low-cost offering for sea food. (There was once a prison riot in Maine over being served lobster.) Over time it grew into a luxury item.

Sounds like garbage, but isn't (so it seems). Google search shows it as part of local legend.

http://hamptonroads.atevo.com/guides/focus/archi ve/item/0,3721,3487,00.html"Maine lobster, which is also caught off the coasts of Massachusetts and Canada's Atlantic provinces, is perhaps the most famous and sought-after seafood dish in the world. But if the Pilgrims were to visit New England today, they would be perplexed with the esteem in which the lobster is held. The colonists regarded the meat of the lobst

Back in my hometown (Rock Hill, SC), a local music shop (Woody's) has a used record bin up front. The records in the bin are $1 each. Granted, you won't find any new stuff out there, but if you have a record player and like the poppinp and crackling of vinyl, you can really make out. Even better, I've discovered jazz and rock artists this way--a whole album for the cost of a soda!

Geez...where do you people live?? New CD's (unless the special sacd or limited editions etc)...are in the $12-$15 range. I live in New Orleans...

I don't think I've ever seen a new single CD for as much as ya'll are talking about...

That being said...how about finding and promoting bands that can actually play their instruments well...sing without electronic tone control....can move around on stage while still really performing, and not lip synching...

And most of all...not letting physical appearance be the deciding factor. Often..people with lots of talent aren't the best looking in the world. Hell, back in the day..that's why many of those guys got into bands...they were so ugly, that if they weren't musicians...they'd have NEVER gotten laid...

That might help the sagging sales of the music industry..get some real talent out there.

I think alot of it is the perception of value. If someone is considering buying a new CD or a DVD, and both cost about the same, the usual sale goes to the DVD as it's perceived to be a better value. After all, a movie costs close to $100M for a blockbuster these days. A CD doens't cost nearly as much to make, hence the ever increasing sales of DVDs. The only was to increase the sales of CDs in this sort of competition is to lower the price. Like the article eluded to, some of the lost CD sales are directly attributed to the competition between CDs and DVDs. Like the saying goes, "Perception becomes reality unless challenged by the truth".

This sentence is misleading because it assumes that a new copy is created when you buy the used CD, for which the copyright holder is not separately compensated. This is not necessarily true. As far as I know, the overwhelming majority of people who sell old CDs do not keep copies of those CDs, either burn dupes or rips.

If someone buys a copy of a CD from a copyright holder, and then sells that CD to some third party without making a copy of it, the copyright holder has received everything he is entitled to under the law. Neither the buyer nor the third party need permission from the copyright holder in order to transact their business; this is known as the Right of First Sale.

If a copy has been made, then the buyer has committed copyright infringement, but the third party has not, whereas in your example of downloading it from Kazaa, both parties have committed copyright infringement.

The copy is an "unauthorized distribution" (i.e., against the will of the copyright holder).

Those terms are not equivalent. "Unauthorized distribution" implies (in cases where it does not expressly mean) "distribution of a copy without the legal right to do so." Since you are not creating a new copy and distributing it, but are merely distributing the same copy that was already purchased from the copyright holder, it is entirely legal.

Whether it's against the will of the copyright holder is irrelevant, so long as it's not against the law.

And, as others have noted, you're also supporting a business by buying used, especially since most used music stores are independently owned. And you're also encouraging the primary market, since people are more likely to buy goods like CDs if they know that they can resell the good later once they've gotten some use out of it.

Yes, I did get a copy without directly compensating the copyright holder. Someone else no longer has the copy for which they already paid the copyright holder.

There originally existed one copy, for which royalties were duly paid. There still remains one and only one copy. Unauthorized file sharing, on the other hand, can produce an unlimited number of copies without payment of royalties.

How can you equate the two? And did you study economics at an RIAA-sponsored institution?

Does Ford deserve a royalty payment if someone sells a used car? No, because the original owner no longer has the use of the property. Sheesh.

Of course they won't listen to it. It says that they are the cause for most of their ills. They are the ones that are recruiting shitty music, pushing it to shitty/controlled radio, not embracing the Internet, wasting time on lawsuits instead of their original purpose, and not buying up the independents that they used to get some of the best fringe talent from.

The Economist just blew away their views on how their little corner of the world works.

I have a feeling that the music industry will claim that this article is nothing more than a conglomoration of Internet forum non-sense and that their business-model is acceptable and will continue. Afterall, they can claim whatever they want, the media/controlled-radio will distribute it, and the public is stupid.

They will listen, but they will still respond as you suggest. The article will be ignored, and when record labels are asked for comment they will downplay its accuracy and relevance.

However, the labels will take notice. Now the people in the recording industry who have wanted to alter the course of industry have something big to point to. They will slowly attract the attention of the executives to alternatives, and eventually, the recording industry will be prepared to handle the current state of technology and science.

When I was a boy, (back when computers lacked hard drives and we had to write our own games in BASIC) we had this music swapping system called casette tape. If that wasn't enough, rogue elements of the music industry were simply broadcasting these songs over the radio for free.

Heck, I remember that some of the stuff was so good that I actually went to the music store to buy the album. (Which was subsequently copied and distributed to friends...)

I'm pretty sure that if you talked to someone from the 1860's, and tried to explain to them that there was an industry that was based on people paying for a music recording they would laugh at you.

The whole concept of copyrighting a recording is very recent (1910's or so.) Before then, you would copyright the sheet music, which was published like any other printed work. The whole idea of controlling the playback of music was originally laughed out of court. (The early litigation centered around the mechanical playback of music by player pianos.) What came out of those legal cases was the concept that merely transposing the musical notation into another form (in this case from sheet music to the punch cards for the piano) was considered copyright infringement.

Not because you copied the music, per se. Because you were selling a copy of the music. After a bit of wrangling congress passed laws dealing with "mechanical recordings" which paved the way later for wave-form playback devices that captured sound directly and played it back.

Then came the radio.

With radio (and recorded playback at public events), we had a dilemma. Radio wasn't technically "selling" a recording of the music. They were selling a performance of the music. After a lot of wrangling the music industry and broadcasters came up with a compromise: compulsery licensing. You purchase a license to play back music in public. The proceeds from the license are redistributed back to the artists and publishers. (The RIAA doesn't make a dime off of Radio, that's ASCAP's bailywick.)

With the Internet we have elements of both case law. On one hand we are publishing "machine recordings" of music. On the other, the mechanism to transfer the files is essentially that of a radio broadcaster.

In the end, we should have to pay for the recording. But do we make the check out to the RIAA (ala record sales) or to ASCAP (ala performance licenses). The RIAA, of course, is hoping that the money comes back to them. In the end though, it will probably be an ASCAP type of organization that deals with distributing music over the internet.

For the most part, I agree with your post, but I have a couple of nits. First, if you talked to someone from the 1860s and told them it would be possible to record music in the future, they would be very confused. The first wax cylinder recordings weren't until about 1877.:-)

Second, your terminology is wrong. Compulsory licensing is not licensing a performance. It is licensing the rights to make your -own- recording of a musical composition that has already been recorded and published by someone else

As for me, I'm an old fart at 30 when it comes to my musical tastes. I REALLY would like to give record stores my business. But even going to a Tower records, with thousands of square feet of inventory, I can't find the albums I'm looking for.

Even if I can find the artist I'm looking for, all they have is their "Greatest Hits" album. Now, If I'm looking for a (c)Rap album, I can find 8 different mixes of the same album. But trying to find Devo, The Beloved, or even The Beatles and the Doors is a futile ef

Maybe you should expand your horizons beyond the top 40 then. There's plenty of good music out there, almost always has been. You just have to do the legwork to find the stuff that'll keep you interested.

And to that end I'd suggest your local college radio and/or NPR station as possible sources, depending on your tastes.

If they don't scratch your particular itch, trying some of the small-time indyish stations that have webstreams - you can find music of just about any genre being streamed over the net, and a small or academic radio operation is more likely to weight musicianship in its playlist building than it is to weight billboard chart position.

"Guys, we have a major problem. Sales are at an all-time low, and if you all want to be able to pay for your BMWs and 2-million dollar mansions, we need a new strategy!"

"Now, our attorneys and marketing boys have been hard at work, attempting to pass th blame for this dilemma for months on such things as piracy of all kinds. However, these conclusions just haven't explained the numbers, and we have just recently uncovered a shocking statistic that cannot be ignored. Please consult the chart on the wall to see how the numbers break down."

Internet piracy: 9%

Media piracy: 7%

Any other kind of piracy that we couldn't pull out of our asses: 2%

We sign crummy bands and try to pass their music off on people who actually have taste, despite all of our really expensive research: 80%

Question is, will this really make any difference at all? Not likely... these companies have their minds made up that the internet(s) is(are) the cause.
It's interesting that someone had the balls to write it up especially in an economical media outlet but it won't change anything.
Not a real shocker but nice to be higher profile.

I am not a big music buyer, mostly because I can't get the music I like to hear (classical, folk and Celtic) at local stores such as Wal-mart, and the local folkie store is off my beaten path and has little parking. I would use a service such as this eagerly. And yet, everyone seems to focus on the indie rock scene and the big rock/pop/hiphop acts, and don't think that online distribution might mean the flowering of genres with smaller fans, such as folk, bluegrass, opera, choral, or whatever!

Frankly, the best way for a business to thrive is not to have a radical change of the business model. Instead, incremental changes and continual improvement (hitting singles instead of homers) will get the job done. One incremental change can be to make sure that downloadable music isn't just for young listerners.

nobody points to the real reason music sales are dropping? Today's music isn't based on music, but on image and one hit wonders... Just look at Hoobaskank, one formulated bubble gum song, and they are headling big shows... what have they done since??? And don't forget about the eye candy... Jessica Simpson, Brittany Spears, couldn't sing their way out of wet paper bag, but with the volume down...

Hmm. I'd agree on the Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears but Hoobastank? What's the problem with them.

They a good CD a couple years back with some strong tracks on it and it was one of those CDs that I could listen to all the way through and not want to change the song.

The same with their new release. Sure, that song is a bit cheesy but it's got a catchy beat to it. Have you listened to the rest of the album? It's again, very solid. Every song almost builds on another telling a story throughout the entire album.

And as for what they've done since...um, that CD just came out recently. You want them to pound another one off within 6 months? I think you expect a bit too much there.

Then you get bands like Chumbawamba who, after decades of singing subversive anti-corporate rhetoric, manage to prove their point most eloquently by writing a single album designed to be a one-hit wonder -- as a JOKE.

Now it's tough to find their good old albums because the stores only stock the sucky one-hit wonder album. Seems that the older stuff just doesn't fit the band's image anymore.

According to an internal study done by one of the majors, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the drop in sales in America had nothing to do with internet piracy.

So, one-quarter to one-third of the sales drop is due to internet piracy? I can see why companies might be worried about this. (And everyone who votes me down because I won't subscribe to their "waaa waaa waaa! I want my music for free!" is a wanker.)

The point you're missing here is that, apparently, file-sharing isn't the major cause of the downtrend in sales. If the recording companies would focus on the real causes, and embrace the Internet in the way in which their customers demonstrably want it fashioned (as shown by the popularity of the old Napster and other peer-to-peer technologies), then they could stabilize the sales numbers and see a huge profit from opening up a new revenue stream.

The current download facilities, while popular, still fail to address the real issues presented by peer-to-peer. The RIAA already imposes a "CD Tax", why couldn't it have imposed a "Napster Tax"? The issue isn't really about free music, but rather about unfettered access to a wide variety.

Of course, the record companies fear decentralized distribution because it removes some of their current complete power over the industry, which is what this issue is REALLY all about.

Interesting, but even by your numbers the single biggest contributor to a drop in sales is decreased interest by the consuming public (45%). Shrinking retail space occurs because end-sellers have seen a shrinking demand for Product X and want to give Product Y (with more public demand) more shelf space. Competition from other media, again, points to decreased consumer demand; if the consumers wanted this particular product, it would squash the competition. Quality of music is, then, either the nexus or t

The CD boom was people format shifting to CD media, many people own legit vinyl, cassette and CD copies of the same album. I'm not in a real hurry to switch formats again and the great thing about digital music is that I can make unlimited copies without the sound quality degrading, this is the ONLY reason I re purchased on CD's, and if they want to make it hard for me to do that I'll stop buying.

The drop in sales has fuck all to do with filesharing, and everything to do with the witless commercial pop that saturates the market; everybody except the RIAA knows it!

I think the main reason why music sales have declined is indeed an innovation problem - but it may not be the record company's fault (for once).

In every decade you had technical innovation - whether it was 4 track recording in the 60's, the emergence of prog rock and sophisticated recording techniques in the 70's, synthesizers in the 80's, or rap/rock fusion in the 90's.

Question: What has the 2000's offered that previous decades have not? Answer: Not too much. For the first time, there's no real innovation in the sound itself - there's simply nothing that hasn't already been done, no tech that a generation can call their own.

If the music seems lame, it's because it is - it's all been done before.

I'll tell you how, because it's painfully true. The music industry has built it's business by offering something new to each generation of kids. Honestly, what's new lately? The artist examples you give have been around since the 90's - at least. I was taling about THIS decade.

It can be argued that music is continually evolving and I agree with that except that the previous few decades have shown far more music innovation that has arguably happened for thousands of years. The presentation of recorded music

The article mentioned that large retailers, such as Walmart, are dedicating less and less space to CDs due to the increase in other entertainment media, I would suggest that an easy way to get around with would be to develop terminals that allow you to browse a library of CD's, sample a portion of each song, and then if you choose to buy the album, burns and labels the CD for you on the spot. This would eliminate the need for shelving for CD's, as well as allow retailers to have a much wider selection of music available.

This would eliminate the need for shelving for CD's, as well as allow retailers to have a much wider selection of music available.

But at a much higher cost. Not only do you have to pay for the burner machine, but you also have to deal with issues like what to do about inserts, cases, etc. Also, a listen/burn machine is a serial use item, while shelving is parallel use. Finally maintenance, content updating, etc., all raise the cost even more.

Anyway, it's non-viable when I can just sub in another rack of DVD's at a higher margin. If we end up where DVD's are the only thing available, who cares. People will generally spend their entertainment income on what's promoted and available. Which bits happen to be on the plastic doesn't matter to the retailers. Nor does it matter to the conglomerates who are just as happy (if not more so) to sell a crappy DVD as opposed to a crapy CD.

" This is a study, just like the other studies made. Because this one says what you want to hear, doesn't make it 'truth.'"

It wasn't just any study. It was made by one of the major music publishers. Not by an pro-consumer group or the lobbying arm of the consumer electronics manufacturers, but by the VERY people, who have been claiming Napster killed the CD star.

TFA mentioned a reason why CD sales were dropping is that CDs are competing for shelf space with other, higher-value forms of entertainment.Which is true (that the OST CD is worth almost as much as the full DVD is puzzling at best), but missed a more important point.

Two words: Cell phones.

Here in Europe most basic plans cost EUR 40 a month. That's a sizeable share of a teenager's allowance. That's at least 3 CDs a month they won't buy.

Personally, I find that CD's are just too expensive for me. I don't care that much about music, and can better spend that $15 elsewhere. Also, I just haven't found anything I really like in a while, though unlike most/. I blame this on my own narrow mindedness, and not the new music sucking. If the new music sucked so much, why does it sell so many copies? Most people tend to get stuck in a certain era of music, don't like the new stuff? Don't act suprised about it, you're getting old. Every generation tends to think that the next generation's music sucks, that's not going to change for you, you're not special, get over it.

I don't think I'm too old (I'm a 30-something) to be interested in new sounds and genres, but man - the stuff out today does nothing for me. I'd say 90%+ of hip-hop/rap is utter garbage, and the alternative stuff isn't all that alternative.

I'm someone who is to old and I really like a lot of the new music I hear today. The problem for RIAA is that none of it is published by them. There are so many alternative sources for music these days that I haven't purchased any RIAA stuff in years. I have purchased cd's from bands at live shows, streamed Internet radio, purchased music from magnatunes.com, downloaded from bands websites, downloaded live shows from sites like etree.org. All legal alternative ways to get quality music these days. RIAA just needs to wise up.

I am in the 40+ range and I agree. I also go out at times to venues that have live local bands playing and I enjoy their music a lot better than the packaged garbage the big companies try to get me to buy. These are not always the R&B & classic rock, but, bleeding edge bands and music. I don't always like the music, but, it is not boring. Also, their CDs are MUCH cheaper than the ones in the store and I know where the money is going to!

If the hip hop you know is "endless, short electronic loops" then - in my opinion - you're not listening to hip hop. The definitions get nit-picky, but in my mind if the MC (the guy with the microphone) doesn't have a DJ backing him up doing the music, it's not hip hop. It could be called rap, though. (Hip hop as a genre, to me, would have to embody more than one of the aspects of hip hop culture - MCing, DJing, breakdancing, and graffiti.) So music with a DJ is what you're looking for. The music should be as good as the lyrics.

Now, beyond the instrumentals - if the music you know has weak and/or stupid lyrics, we have to find you new music. The reason I listen to hip hop is because of the lyrics, not in spite of. Because the lyrics are smart, because the rhymes are rhymes I've never heard, etc.

Without rambling on for days, let me list a few albums or artists you might like to check out. Jurassic 5 - any album. Blackalicious - any album, but check out the newest one Blazing Arrow. Lyrics Born - Later That Day. Maroons - Ambush. Zion I - any album. Dilated Peoples - any album. Mos Def. The Roots. Talib Kweli. All of these groups have smart, generally positive lyrics. If you find someone you like, visit www.allmusic.com [allmusic.com] and see who they've worked with on other songs, and check out those artists too.

If you're interested in turntablism (creating music with other records as the primary source) check out some of the great turntablists - The X-ecutioners, Rob Swift, Cut Chemist, DJ Z-Trip, DJ Shadow. (Rob Swift is in the X-ecutioners, but he has a few solo albums.)

It will be different music than what you're used to, probably, but it'll also be different than the overproduced "blazin' hip hop & R&B" trash they play on the radio. Give it a chance, and listen to the lyrics and pay attention to what the DJs are doing - maybe you'll find something you like.

While this story is nothing new to us, and while it won't affect the decisions of anybody on the labels' side, it gives me a small amount of hope since it is the Economist writing this story.

The economist reaches a very broad audience of VERY intelligent people, and also people who tend to have a lot of money, or be in positions of power. Hopefully they can recongize the situation for what it is, and I think the economist will give the position some credibility.

We have to start somewhere with educating the people in charge, and I'd say the Economist is a hell of a source to have touting this position.

It's often beem said on Slashdot that the real reason for the decline is the decline of the quality of the music. That's possibly true, but I'd like to know how a reliable study could report on it objectively.

Music tastes are extremely subjective. If anything, the objective measures would tend to suggest that the music is getting better, in the sense that it's been focus-grouped to death. Somebody out there is saying, "Yes, we like it. We like it so much we want to copy it off the Internet or from a friend's CD."

It seems likely that in fact the focus-grouping and hit-promoting have lowered the quality of the music to a least common denominator, but I'd love to know how this industry report went about measuring that. In the end that measurement will describe how the music changes from here. The executives who make the decisions aren't artists and don't use artistic judgment to decide what to produce. They look at numbers and poll likely group members to see what will sell. They know that people will only buy what they like, so I'd love to know what measure of "like" they're using for this study that's different from the ones they're already using.

The music industry has a hard time accepting that they sell an elastic good - when prices go up, sales go down. That's really happened to concert tickets. $60 tickets for second-tier bands went unsold all summer. Several major tours were cancelled. Lollapalooza was cancelled due to slow ticket sales.

The endless reissue of "oldies" is self-limiting. By now, everybody who wants any Beatles/Stones/Doors CD presumably has it.

But the fundamental problem is much simpler. The outlets that sell audio CDs don't just sell music. They also sell movie DVDs, which provide more entertainment content at a lower price.
Audio CDs ought to sell for about $3.99 to $5.99. There's no excuse for audio CDs by mediocre bands costing more than DVDs of major, big-budget films.

I get really pissed off when big corporations have the facts, but then spout an entirely different view to the public. The music industry knows that piracy isn't the biggest cause, yet in public (to congressmen) they are screaming bloody murder.

It's the exact same thing with the pharma companies withholding the results of studies that are damaging to them. Ditto for the tobacco companies. I wish there was something that forced big companies to tell the truth when they have it.

I think that the biggest reason that music sales are declining is that the largest demographic in this contry has finally stopped buying lots of music. The boomers have finally repurchased all the music they have owned on vinyl, eight track and cassette. They are not interested in Ashlee Simpson, Usher, Coldplay or Creed. Most of their children have grown up, so they aren't spending a lot of money there either.

The news from the industry is that sales are in decline since the 90's. One thing that isn't clear is the relative sales of new material vs newly released material. During the early 90's the CD player became affordable to the masses, and many people started to replace their older cassettes and records in addition to buying new CDs. The music companies started raking in sales, but after a decade, most of the old albums have been replaced.

Sure there are re-releases today still but the numbers dwarf in comparison to the beginning to 90's. This was a point brought up during PBS Frontline "The Way the Music Died" [pbs.org] documentary on the troubles of the music industry. I seem to remember that Frontline pointed out that sales relative to new albums have actually gone up. But the overall sales have gone down because older albums sales have decline greatly. This Economist report doesn't address this point.

I agree with the sentiment that mass-marketed music has declined dramatically in quality in recent years. However, the cloud has a silver lining that is becoming rapidly more apparent. As commercial music becomes increasingly unpalatable, niche markets for creative local groups become available.

We are experiencing a Renaissance of locally-produced music, from street performers to small bands. Music is no longer the exclusive domain of a handful of mega-conglomerates, but is being taken back and revitalized on the micro scale. Seattle/Portland (near me) support a thriving community of small indepenent musicans producing truly excellent music. It's like the 60's all over again. Not so much "new" sounds, but new takes on the folk/rock/celtic traditions and a resurgence of interest in vocals and acoustic instrumentation rather than synthesized, reprocessed top-40. Complex, muti-layered arrangements that depend on real musicians, not 20 year old pinups with digitally-enhanced vocals supporting their silicon-enhanced figures.

Personnally, I'm excited by the trend, and am actively building a large and varied CD collection with very little help from the RIAA.

For anyone interested, Frontline produced a very nice documentary about this topic.

Record labels were once small and not very profitable. However during the 80's and early 90's the music industry saw the introduction of CDs, which compelled people to purchase many of their older albums again, as well as the introduction of new genres of pop music ( HipHop, Rap, Grundge, etc). The combination of these events brought a LOT of money to record labels, and that compelled larger corporations to start investing in the music industry. Unfortunately, CDs and new genres of music became mainstream, and now we have corporate labels who are concerned about quarterly profits... not long term investments. All in all, it's a recipe for disaster... and crappy music.

The major distributors are now in a situation where their product is having to compete with a free rival (P2P). It's hard to compete with free. In fact, all the major distributors have to offer are ease of access, breadth of catalogue and guaranteed quality. This is not worth 15 UKP a CD and 25 UKP a DVD! this painful adjustment is currently what the major distributors are in denial about, and have attempted to perform a minimum-effort resolution, lawsuits, and via DRM.

Our culture is accustomed to copying, because of the VCR, and it is not possible, a la prohibition, to legislate out of existance an act which is widely culturally accepted.

DRM is a brittle solution, since the P2P networks provide immediate and universal distribution of material; if a DRMed product is broken *just once*, then it's gone - it goes public, and that's that. Since DRM is a major investment, and since these companies have a long habit of choosing proprietory security implimentations, I think they're on a burning plane with no parachutes.

I strongly feel that new music is just awful. These new musicians are horrendous, and shoved down our throats by huge media marketing campaigns. Throw in the fact that hip-hop has become the mainstream and its driven by no-talent ass clowns (Lil' John, Birdy, Chingy, Nelly, etc), we won't see any good music for a while.

Four years ago, if you had said that my favorite style of music would be a genre of country music I'd have probably decked you and told you to never speak such blasephemies. But now I love country, I'm not talking about your run of the mill radio-country/Nashville country, I'm talking about "Texas country" or "progressive country". In an era where rock and roll is composed entirely of people with annoying whiney voices and no musical talent whatsoever and rap/hip-hop artists are starting to remind me more and more of the way 80's heavy metal bands started acting with their excesses of everything, Texas country has filled my musical gap.

I know, I know... most of the people on Slashdot are probably thinking I've started smoking crack or something, but I can honestly say I can't remember the last time I bought a new rock album. Try bands like Cross Canadian Ragweed or Reckless Kelly, they are more southern rock than country. Pat Green is the godfather of the Texas music scene, although I think he's starting sound more and more "Nashville", check out his older albums. There are too many other names to mention here but i'll put a link on the bottom of the page.

Of all current styles of music this seems to be the only one that doesn't have completely innane lyrics, i.e. the lyrics aren't about how much their life sucks like most current rock songs, doing drugs and having sex like most current rap songs(remind you of 80's metal?, hehe), and finally the lyrics aren't some lame patriotic theme or a corny love song like "Nashville country". Not to mention that the artists actually write their own songs, which can't be said about alot of forms of music popular these days. If you still doubt me, then by all means check out some of these bands. I don't think anyone outside of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana even knows they exist. At the universities here in Texas I don't think I know a single person who hasn't at least heard of these guys. I hope I helped you find alternatives to the RIAA's list of crap....

I believe the major reason for lackluster sales of CDs is that MTV doesn't play videos anymore and radio is payola, playing the same crap over and over. I think a lot of music buyers have also been alienated by the rise of hip-hop.

Not too long ago, there was a slashdot article [slashdot.org]of an interview with David Crosby on Frontline.

He talked about how at some point the tone and attitude of big music changed from being supportive and developing of young talent for the long term to being adverserial and short term profit minded.

I think this economist article is the conclusion and proof of what he was talking about, his thoughts were mostly anecdotal without concrete evidence. From the interview:

"When it all started, record companies -- and there were many of them, and this was a good thing -- were run by people who loved records," he says. "Now record companies are run by lawyers and accountants.... The people who run record companies now wouldn't know a song if it flew up their nose and died."SRC: PBS Frontline [pbs.org]

The result of this commercialization and 'selling out' resulted in companies the likes of Sony, BMG, EMI, etc. run by lawyers and accountants. Of course, their first instinct when faced with new technology and a threat is to sue the pants of grandmas and 12 year olds. Way to go corporate America!!!

I'm gonna apologize for my attitude, for this next part but... I got karma to burn.

Evidently, having some lawyer or accountant run a business may just well run it into the ground. There is apparently no substitute, no matter how ivy or expensive your degree may be, for heart and really appreciating the business you work with or work in. Being in it for money will eventually sink the ship. It's love of music that brings out the great music, and brings it to the people, not lawsuits, not cheap thrills turned into overnight successes with the help of Payola (to radio stations -- ahem Clear Channel), over promotion and slick advertising (ahem -- MTV).

I hope Elliot Spitzer rips these companies and the lawyers who run them a new one with his Payola investigation.

>The reason I usually don't buy CDs is because 90% of the mainstream music sold out there is simply SHIT.

i never bought this argument. i'm pretty sure in the 90s, we blasted the 90s music as being crappy compared to the 80s. and in the 80s, we blasted the 80s music as being crappy compared to the 70s. and so on.

you may think music now is crappy compared to what you grew up with. what makes this generation so special that the entire consumer base thinks the music is crappy at the same time?

I think there is great music made in every era. The issue is whether the mainstream, top 40, popular music, stuff you'd hear on mainstream FM stations, in any given era is stuff that has lasting appeal and merit of some sort, or is truly bad, meritless stuff.

For example, I think the early 90s were a great era for mainstream music, with artists from Dre and Snoop Dogg to Nirvana that produced not only commercial success but also lasting music with merit (whether or not it's all to your tastes). The late 9

No not playing it, but recording at concerts. there is a LARGE number of bands that allow taping at a concert. I end up with live albums of my favorites and not so favorites that is usually massively better than the junk the RIAA tries to sell.

I got sick of crap music a long time ago. the only NEW album I have bought in over 2 years was the new CAKE album, and I bought that off the band's website to ensure they get the money from it.

I believe they refer to the people selling pirated copies of CDs (and usually other stuff, eg DVDs as well) on street corners and such...I know someone who was in New York City recently and saw both new-release movie bootlegs as DVDs and plenty of recent, mainstream pop CDs for sale in the sub-$10 range...as long as the cops didn't get too close, at which point the merchants either hid the media or split.

While this may not be news to/. community, I can assure you that this *is* news to the PHB & corporate executive types. I haven't found any "studies" showing your assertion, only a bunch of no-name anonymous people on the internet. Having someone as respected in the business community back up your assertion will give you clout when dealing with the non-slashdot (Joe Six-Pack & Granny) community. To put it bluntly:

It's one thing to run your mouth on a tech related web site claiming something. It's

The Economist is such an excellent magazine because even when they write about something we know about, we can say "duh" instead of "they got it all wrong". Now extend that to world news, business, finance and economics, science and technology, and a smattering of other articles, and you have a magazine that covers a lot of things pretty well, which is not an easy accomplishment. It's nice to see things like this there, because it also means they are probably being read by at least a few people with real